Jon, I am sending this to you because my normal email has temprorarily
died, and I am not sure how open the list is.
Two comments about the proposed setup:
1. The GL rating P3 wa changed to 'this guideline may be implemented
to improve access...' giving a MUST/SHOULD/MAY classification which
could be related directly to the three priority grades. Should UA be
looking at something similar?
2. The 'compatibility with assistive technology' sounds pretty woolly
to me. Are we talking about stuff that we ought to be expecting from
the DOM being passed from the browser itself to the assistive
technology, or are we asking everyone to implement Microsoft's Active
Accessibility, or some other standard already in existence? It seems
to me that we should be specifying a standard interface for functions
we are not requiring of the browser itself.
Charles McCathieNevile
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com